Reviews: Morphology and syntax
of labour between morphology and syntax is thus perfect: morphology only . If we now go back to the problem that was illustrated in (1) and (2), it should be. Since morphology is interrelated with phonology, syntax, and semantics, changes A more theoretical issue is—at least if we believe in the modularity of .. the genitive case and shows a syntactic relation between the nominal non- head and. Skills within form (phonology, syntax, and morphology), function (semantics), and problems comprehending and using complex syntactic structures;; extensive difficulty understanding others;; perceived immaturity in relation to same-age.
It is only in analytic languages that the divisin is blurred. That is to say, it works for English and some other languages but doesn't for the rest of the world. Keeping the distinction does not in any way prevent anyone from having the insights you mention.
Abolishing it, on the other hand, introduces confusion into the description and understanding. There are approaches to morphology where much of what is traditionally considered with morphology is handled with the same kind of formalism as is used in syntax, and morphology may be referred to as "word syntax" on occasion.
However, I do not know of approaches to syntax that strive to account for most common syntactic phenomena using the language of morphology. When word derivations have hierarchical structures, and affixes are given the status of functional heads, it may seem like it's syntax all the way down. These cases, where the same distinction is effected by alternative forms of a "word", constitute allomorphy.
Phonological rules constrain which sounds can appear next to each other in a language, and morphological rules, when applied blindly, would often violate phonological rules, by resulting in sound sequences that are prohibited in the language in question.
Similar rules apply to the pronunciation of the -s in dogs and cats: Lexical morphology[ edit ] Lexical morphology is the branch of morphology that deals with the lexiconwhich, morphologically conceived, is the collection of lexemes in a language.
As such, it concerns itself primarily with word formation: Models[ edit ] There are three principal approaches to morphology and each tries to capture the distinctions above in different ways: Morpheme-based morphology, which makes use of an item-and-arrangement approach.
Lexeme-based morphology, which normally makes use of an item-and-process approach. Word-based morphology, which normally makes use of a word-and-paradigm approach. While the associations indicated between the concepts in each item in that list are very strong, they are not absolute.
Morpheme-based morphology[ edit ] Morpheme-based morphology tree of the word "independently" In morpheme-based morphology, word forms are analyzed as arrangements of morphemes.
A morpheme is defined as the minimal meaningful unit of a language. In a word such as independently, the morphemes are said to be in- depend, -ent, and ly; depend is the root and the other morphemes are, in this case, derivational affixes. More recent and sophisticated approaches, such as distributed morphologyseek to maintain the idea of the morpheme while accommodating non-concatenated, analogical, and other processes that have proven problematic for item-and-arrangement theories and similar approaches.
Morpheme-based morphology presumes three basic axioms: Roots and affixes have the same status as morphemes. As morphemes, they are dualistic signs, since they have both phonological form and meaning. Bloomfield's "lexical morpheme" hypothesis: Morpheme-based morphology comes in two flavours, one Bloomfieldian  and one Hockettian.
- Morphology (linguistics)
For him, there is a morpheme plural using allomorphs such as -s, -en and -ren. Within much morpheme-based morphological theory, the two views are mixed in unsystematic ways so a writer may refer to "the morpheme plural" and "the morpheme -s" in the same sentence. Lexeme-based morphology[ edit ] Lexeme-based morphology usually takes what is called an item-and-process approach. Instead of analyzing a word form as a set of morphemes arranged in sequence, a word form is said to be the result of applying rules that alter a word-form or stem in order to produce a new one.
Studying morphological change can provide a window on the human mind from a historical perspective, at least for those who are also interested in cognitive and theoretical aspects of language. From examples like these we see what speakers do when they are exposed to new data, how they process and produce language which, after all, is the basis for acquiring linguistic competence.
On the relation between morphology and syntax.
What we see again is that borrowing can be seen as being part of morphological change because borrowed items affect the content of the lexicon. We have said that morphology relates to other parts of grammar. Words have phonological properties, when they are combined they form phrases and sentences, some of their forms reflect their syntactic functions, and often they are composed of smaller meaningful pieces.
Further, they form paradigms and are part of lexical families. This is why we can say that the field of morphology is central to linguistics and every linguist has to know about it.
This also applies to changes in morphology. A more theoretical issue is—at least if we believe in the modularity of grammar—where morphology is located. This aspect is tightly linked with the history and development of linguistic theory. During American structuralism Bloomfield applied this distinction to the study of morphology, and many works published at that time predominantly dealt with the phonology and morphology of a language L. For some reason, in Generative Grammar morphology was deprived of its importance and, if considered at all, was seen as being part of either phonology or syntax.
This is the approach taken in this article, and this is why the individual sections deal with the respective interfaces. More recently, modular approaches discussing constraints on the phonology—morphology, morphology—syntax, and morphology—semantics interface have been proposed.
On the Relation Between Morphology And Syntax - Oxford Handbooks
One such model is Ackema and Neelemanp. This model assumes modules for semantics, syntax, and phonology, each of which contains submodules that generate phrasal representations and submodules that generate word-level representations. The syntax module contains a submodule for word syntax, which is seen as a morphological submodule. Further, the model is a system rich of interaction: By dealing with these interfaces many new insights into the parts of grammar have been gained, and the division of labor between these components has become clearer.
Yet there is still much to say, and this especially applies to the study of morphology as an autonomous module and to historical aspects of morphology. In the same book, Joseph notes that from a synchronic perspective we can define when a phenomenon is part of pure morphology, but from a diachronic perspective we can also trace at which point a phenomenon crosses for example from morphology to syntax.
In the next section we will deal with the causes of morphological change.
In Section 3 changes at the interfaces of morphology—phonology, morphology—syntax, and morphology—semantics will be discussed. Section 4 takes a closer look at the internal changes of morphology with a focus on analogy. Section 5 summarizes and concludes. The examples for the types of morphological change given here are predominantly from English, sometimes supported by examples from other languages like German or French.
Generally they are meant to illustrate major patterns of change; examples for minor changes or for other, more exotic languages can be found in the works cited in the article. From this small-scale study it seems that the material undergoing morphological change is already there in the language.